1259:. I don't find the relatively "low" (in quotation marks as everyone has their own standard) number of project edits an issue as it seems you'll be focusing primarily on images, with which you clearly have experience. I commend your honesty in answering #3 (and also on how you handled yourself in the respective controversies) and the bit about "ignoring IAR" was the cherry on top. Cheers,
914:. I noticed Staecker's bot as well, and I thought the same things that PS2 did. We NEED admins for image help. Those opposes are rather weak... If he wants to help with images, I don't see a real need for XfD or policy-discussion experience. If he ever gets involved in closing AfDs, for example, he'll be able to get the needed experience on his own before jumping into it.
86:
the untagged image. Staecker ended up adding some code to copy the licensing information to make sure both images had the same information. I feel that giving
Staecker the tools would be greatly beneficial to him by allowing him to review why admins sometimes deleted the image that wasn't tagged which would allow him to further refine his bot.
1435:
assume good faith in comments such as the one above. Surely casting "neutral" votes on RFAs is not "disruption". (I would also suggest that this is not the place for this discussion. If you have a real complaint, kindly discuss it on my talk page, or if you feel the need, a request for comments.)
1434:
I would very much appreciate it if you would refrain from accusing me of breaching
Knowledge's rules for expressing my opinions on RFAs in this manner. I do not believe that you can show that my neutral votes, cast in the manner I have been casting them, "disrupt Knowledge". It is very difficult to
444:
I'd be happy to elaborate on any of the above (or anything else), and look forward to good discussion regardless of the votes. I hope to be as transparent as possible- if you are aware of significant information about me that I'm leaving out, please let me know and I'll try to address it. I also know
400:
be invoked, I'm afraid that I haven't considered this very seriously (I guess I've been ignoring IAR). I haven't to my recollection invoked IAR since I've been editing here, and don't plan to start doing so anytime soon. I suppose that's because I've never felt that existing policies have conflicted
155:
The experience with the bot, and image deletions by hand for many months before, has shown me that we need help in clearing speedy deletions (at least as far as images go). Help first of all in the form of bodies willing to go through the hassle of making the deletions, and second of all in evolving
85:
to automatically identify and tag CSD I1 candidates. He asked me why I occasionally would delete the other duplicated instead of the one that
Staeckerbot tagged. I explained it was because sometimes the licensing information wasn't identical or the uploader provided more details about the image on
99:
and has helped users clear up image copyright problems. I am confident in his knowledge of policy, especially image/CSD related. Reading through
Staecker's contributions, I have found that he has kept his cool and makes good use of talk pages and edit summaries to explain any possible contentious
1285:
Whilst there are surely areas with which the candidate is not as familiar as might be the (non-existent) ideal candidate, I think his contribution history here to provide a sufficient basis on which to conclude that he is possessed of good judgment and a cordial and measured temperament, such that
292:
I hope that anybody who's interested can read over the above incidents and decide for themselves if I acted appropriately. I think that having a clear head and civil tone is absolutely essential. I don't experience stress very publicly in these situations- I do get a little excited in my own mind,
159:
I also have seen horrible problems with image licensing tagging- so many images are improperly tagged, and I've occasionally done what I can to fix them up, but as is I think more needs to be done from a policy/interface standpoint. That's just another half-baked idea in my mind at this point, but
151:
gallery, looking for suspicious images (likely copyvios, duplicates, etc). I was always surprised that nobody else seemed to be patrolling that gallery. A couple of months ago I decided to write a bot to detect duplicate file uploads, and now this bot (still in trial) nominates about 75 duplicates
410:
As for implicit/explicit, I think that it would always be better to make it explicit, and I would hope to live up to this standard myself. This helps other users to tell the difference between someone who is ignorant of policy and someone who has seriously considered the particular action and has
1321:
per Xoloz. While I don't have issue with his edit count as a whole he has few project space contributions and only 12 in the discussion sections, all in WikiProjects. I like more involvment in the "inner workings" before giving out a backstage pass. With some time in the project space, esp with
206:
Honestly speaking, my most useful edits over my two years here might have been anti-vandalism. It gives me some sort of cheap thrill to revert silly vandalism (the sillier the better). I go for a month or so reverting fairly high-traffic vandalism pages, until I get fed up and take my business
386:
Of course there are times when it should not be invoked- i.e. almost always. In the vast majority of our edits, we should play by the rules. That's what the rules are for. If a user finds themselves ignoring a particular rule on a regular basis, then the rule probably needs to be
163:
I have a fair amount of expertise in the ins and outs of MediaWiki- I run several at the
College where I work. This of course doesn't directly impact my editing at Knowledge, but at least I already know what the "delete" tab looks like and I'm not going to be trigger-happy with
289:. I made what I thought was a fairly innoccuous suggestion, and ended up with a fairly hostile reaction. My lesson learned from that episode- don't try to jump in, even in a very little way, to mega-controversies without doing a lot of research ahead of time (which I didn't).
121:
Thanks for the nom, PS2- I hadn't ever seriously considered my being an admin, but I gratefully accept the idea, if others are in favor. I have been editing for 2 years now- I care a lot about WP, and would love to assist in any way that the community deems appropriate.
231:. Why such an obscure page gets vandals, I don't know, but it always gives me a smile to see that one pop up on my watchlist. My nominator has suggested that I should take the time to notify vandals more often when I revert them, and this is, I think, a good suggestion.
1127:
We have image backlogs, and
Staecker said he would help. I don't see anything in the user logs, edits or anything that would tell me that Staecker can't be trusted. If Staecker chooses to work in some space where Staecker does not have the experiance, I
277:
about NPOV, and to this day I'm not really sure who was right (I eventually "lost" by giving up- by the way I'd appreciate any commentary on that debate, not to revive it but to clarify my impressions of what NPOV is supposed to mean in a case like
533:
Attitude and experience are all there with the bot-work an additional plus. I imagine that the projectspace and user Talk edits will increase dramatically after the admin tools allow you to patrol the new pages/recent changes pages, etc.
401:
with my efforts to improve the encyclopedia. If at some time they did, then I would feel justified in invoking IAR, and believe that this is the spirit of the rule: if a policy prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, then ignore it.
456:. I've seen so many people pimping their RfAs and other causes that I thought it was fairly accepted. But now that I've seen the guideline page (it's fairly new, right?) I reverted the above diff. Sorry if anybody thought it was uncool-
635:
You have made contribs in many different areas, you're experienced, and civil. I like that you admit experiences where you learned something important--shows maturity. Nice clear answers to questions. Edit count not a problem for me.
293:
but always try to put my emotions aside when contributing. I am always willing to admit when I'm wrong (I hope), and certainly would never use adminship as a trump in disputes in which I was personally involved.
785:. I don't see anything to be concerned about - it appears that the editor handles sticky situations well. Obviously needs the tools to just clear the offending images instead of just nominating them. --
195:(feel free to AFD that last one, if it's not worth keeping- the pic is priceless, at least). I'm also a PhD mathematician, and have contributed a fair amount of material in my research area (
335:
81:. I didn't think much of it at the time, but I noticed there were an extremely high ratio of CSD I1 images. The next day, Staecker contacted me and let me know that he was working on a
1309:
I really like your demeanor, and we certainly need help with image backlogs. Still, I feel a bit more project-space experience is needed to give you the feel for handling the mop.
687:
558:- A sensible user who I feel would not abuse admin abilities and who has answered the questions well. Also, seems to have plenty of experience, especially with bots and images.
1334:
per above reasons. From my personal experience I can say that without many project-space edits it is very hard for an editor to comprehend the convoluted policies and rules.
970:. Staecker appears experienced enough and has been here for a while. A bit of caution with the new tools should compensate for the lack of edits in project space I think.
130:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
1103:- Trust him to run a bot, and trust him with the tools. The two are not necessarily related, but strong performance on one is an indicator for the other, I believe.
680:
256:
241:
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
699:
1383:
Your contributions and statements give a very good impression, but your total edit count of 2660 is a bit low, really. I'd be happy to support you some time later.
962:
834:
1444:
1429:
979:
1287:
538:
1054:
930:
848:
670:
156:
our policies to make it more efficient. I'm sorry to say that I don't have any revolutionary ideas, but I recognize the need and will gladly help however I can.
1399:
1263:
1222:
1095:
906:
822:
789:
619:
1425:
since WikiProjects don't do that and there's no reason to expect that they will given that no single editor or group of editors has authority over a project.
1416:
1028:
732:
597:
777:
765:
651:
525:
460:
415:
259:.) These are cases in which I felt that I was clearly in the right, and I've tried to respond to unreasonable or misguided attitudes with grace and patience.
1277:
1161:
1149:
995:
1294:
1237:
1185:
1119:
1107:
1042:
564:
513:
1352:
1173:
882:
804:
753:
627:
346:
1251:
1083:
894:
865:
745:
720:
550:
1014:
946:
1197:
453:
314:
1368:
1326:
522:
326:
1212:
1338:
82:
1463:
741:
438:
192:
1286:
one can safely conclude that he should neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally, e.g., by acting whereof he does not know) and thus the
1481:
199:
and related topics). My edits to WP often follow my life interests as they come up. I've been contributing quite a bit on the films of
873:, one of those rare, but nice, cases where someone demonstrates knowledge of policy without a bunch of projectspace contributions. -
378:
499:
109:
1387:
434:
1313:
507:
Seen them around and interacted briefly regarding the bot, very civil. Also familiarity with the tools is always helpful. -
147:
is all about image speedy deletions. A bit of background- Over the past year or so, I used to occasionally page though the
925:
322:
Sorry, it's not. I've been a long time watcher of WikiProject
Mathematics, but have made very few contributions there.
286:
646:
184:
55:
33:
17:
183:
As far as my (manual) edits are concerned, I've done my best to create new articles wherever I see the need, some
174:
Of your articles or contributions to
Knowledge, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
74:
749:
861:
274:
89:
Staecker has also contributed quite a bit to other image related tasks. He has nominated images for being
267:
252:
1225:
Looks like a good fellow, and as I can't make head or tail of the opposes here I am. Give him the mop!
180:
Certainly my most useful recent contribution to the project as a whole has been my bot, described above.
1462:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
263:
975:
535:
1050:
Admin shouldn't be a big deal and lack of good reason to oppose is plenty good reason to support.
262:
One thing that bugs me is pre-emptive semiprotects, which I've encountered twice. See discussions
920:
665:
247:
I have had a few run ins- Conflicts with misguided new users have included: A lengthy debate at
1440:
1412:
1219:
818:
1024:
831:
729:
585:
1360:
An admin really does need a lot of experience in the
Knowledge: namespace, its talk pages.
971:
495:
220:
105:
93:
1346:
at this stage for similar/same reasons as Wooyi, Xoloz (with added comment by NeoFreak).--
8:
990:
306:
Is your candidacy for adminship endorsed by any WikiProjects, and if so, which ones? --
1426:
1396:
1234:
1051:
915:
840:
660:
343:
282:
68:
1436:
1408:
1395:
Like Sandstein says. Looks pretty good, yet a wee bit more experience would be nice.
1347:
1260:
1092:
903:
878:
814:
786:
606:
572:
An excellent candidate, could use the tools when, definitely be trusted. Good luck -
449:
445:
that I can be a bit longwinded- let me know if I should just shut up about something.
368:
273:
Of course I don't always feel that I'm clearly right. I had a long-winded debate at
714:
574:
188:
148:
144:
47:
1422:
1012:
774:
762:
637:
491:
339:
101:
1384:
1272:
1158:
1137:
985:
695:
251:
about nomenclature. Receiving the brunt of a disgruntled user over an image at
196:
1407:. Looks like a good candidate; would support with a WikiProject endorsement.
215:(the similarities are subtle but many), etc. Most recently I've been watching
1475:
1456:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
1362:
1323:
1291:
1231:
1182:
1116:
1104:
1037:
559:
509:
457:
430:
412:
364:
323:
212:
200:
64:
830:. Clearing backlogs is something we can always use an extra keyboard for. --
227:-related vandal each day. My personal favorite page to watch for vandalism:
160:
it's something I care about, and something that I would love to help repair.
1209:
1203:
1170:
874:
624:
1246:
1063:
956:
891:
857:
709:
547:
255:(more comments at my talk). Being accused of faith-based censorship (see
248:
1132:
that Staecker will trend with caution. All admins are not the same, and
1335:
1310:
1004:
939:
801:
1322:
policy discussion I would see no reason not to support in the future.
1466:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1194:
307:
1169:
good candidate. I'm sure you'll take on board the comments below. --
78:
1288:
net effect on the project of his being sysopped should be positive
1091:
The guy handles himself well with others, a very important trait.
208:
1193:
not a big mainspace contributor, but knows his way around a mop.
367:? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked?
216:
411:
decided that it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia.
224:
116:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
228:
798:
good experience and no concerns if he handles admin tools.
207:
elsewhere. I spent some time keeping the "haters" off of
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
77:) - I first met Staecker after a night of working on
546:
per good answers and sufficient overall experience.
137:What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
270:. You be the judge if I handled it appropriately.
1473:
281:I also had a (in my opinion) ugly experience at
60:(49/5/3); Ended Sun, 15 Apr 2007 05:11:08 (UTC)
468:Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
605:seems trustworthy and experienced. Why not? —
1062:. In my opinion, he has enough experience. -
761:Looks like good reasons for Adminship to me
707:Good contribs, active, no reason to oppose.
363:When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke
1134:adminship is not supposed to be a big deal
800:Change to oppose after further examining.
1181:- Trustworthy and understands policy. --
1115:Per rationale set out on my user page.
14:
1474:
890:Looks good - oppose comments weak.--
521:I share the nominator's confidence.
355:Optional question from Naconkantari:
338:. Of course, that project is a bit
23:
336:Knowledge:WikiProject Endorsements
24:
1493:
1482:Successful requests for adminship
287:Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive29
659:A good candidate for adminship.
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
938:per nom and other supporters.--
1003:, seems capable for the role.
902:Appears good, useful contribs
437:. For the edit count, see the
13:
1:
275:Talk:Florence Foster Jenkins
7:
433:'s edit summary usage with
253:Talk:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
126:Questions for the candidate
10:
1498:
1445:17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
1430:16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
1417:16:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
1369:19:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1353:09:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
1295:04:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
1278:04:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
1264:01:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
1252:22:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
1238:21:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1223:18:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1213:15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1206:15:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1198:06:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1186:19:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
1174:12:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
1162:18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
1150:17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
1120:16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
1108:05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
1096:04:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
1084:03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
1055:02:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
1043:16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
1029:15:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
1015:13:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
996:10:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
980:02:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
963:01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
947:01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
931:00:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
907:00:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
416:17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
379:17:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
347:13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
327:03:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
315:17:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
1400:16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
1388:13:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
1339:20:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
1327:01:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
1314:15:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
895:19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
883:15:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
866:13:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
849:11:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
835:06:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
823:05:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
805:23:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
790:04:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
778:03:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
766:01:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
754:20:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
733:15:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
721:15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
700:14:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
671:14:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
652:14:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
628:13:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
620:12:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
598:11:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
565:11:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
551:10:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
539:09:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
526:06:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
514:05:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
500:01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
461:13:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
334:Candidate is endorsed by
110:01:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
1459:Please do not modify it.
1157:per the other supports.
678:- no reasons to oppose.
1393:Neutral leaning support
39:Please do not modify it
728:I hate editcountis. --
448:Someone pointed me to
223:, which get about one
1421:This is bordering on
1271:, no problems here.--
1036:I don't see why not.
34:request for adminship
1245:- looks just fine -
221:Nursultan Nazarbayev
1208:Sorry voted twice.
1350:
452:regarding my edit
285:, which is now at
283:Intelligent design
257:section at my talk
193:edge of notability
185:fairly interesting
1367:
1348:
1022:- Looks good...--
994:
881:
821:
697:
650:
490:as nominator. --
149:Special:Newimages
1489:
1461:
1361:
1275:
1249:
1147:
1142:
1081:
1078:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1040:
1027:
1010:
1007:
988:
959:
944:
928:
923:
918:
877:
847:this message! -
832:Hemlock Martinis
817:
717:
712:
698:
694:
692:
685:
668:
663:
644:
641:
616:
613:
594:
591:
588:
583:
580:
577:
562:
561:Camaron1 | Chris
424:General comments
376:
371:
312:
189:certainly useful
145:User:Staeckerbot
98:
92:
41:
1497:
1496:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1464:this nomination
1457:
1365:
1273:
1247:
1143:
1138:
1093:Tony the Marine
1079:
1076:
1073:
1070:
1067:
1064:
1038:
1023:
1008:
1005:
972:Oleg Alexandrov
957:
940:
926:
921:
916:
864:
819:(Упражнение В!)
715:
710:
688:
681:
679:
666:
661:
649:
639:
614:
608:
592:
589:
586:
581:
578:
575:
560:
396:As for when it
372:
369:
308:
211:, some time at
96:
90:
52:
37:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1495:
1485:
1484:
1469:
1468:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1402:
1390:
1372:
1371:
1363:
1355:
1341:
1329:
1316:
1298:
1297:
1280:
1266:
1254:
1240:
1226:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1188:
1176:
1164:
1152:
1122:
1110:
1098:
1086:
1057:
1045:
1031:
1017:
998:
982:
965:
949:
933:
909:
897:
885:
868:
860:
856:looks good.--
851:
837:
825:
809:
808:
807:
780:
768:
756:
735:
723:
702:
673:
654:
645:
630:
622:
600:
567:
553:
541:
536:(aeropagitica)
528:
516:
502:
479:
478:
465:
464:
463:
446:
442:
435:mathbot's tool
426:
425:
421:
420:
419:
418:
405:
404:
403:
402:
391:
390:
389:
388:
352:
351:
350:
349:
329:
301:
300:More questions
297:
296:
295:
294:
290:
279:
271:
260:
235:
234:
233:
232:
204:
197:Nielsen theory
191:, some on the
181:
168:
167:
166:
165:
161:
157:
153:
128:
127:
119:
118:
51:
46:
45:
44:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1494:
1483:
1480:
1479:
1477:
1467:
1465:
1460:
1454:
1453:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1428:
1427:Pascal.Tesson
1424:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1403:
1401:
1398:
1397:Pascal.Tesson
1394:
1391:
1389:
1386:
1382:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1370:
1366:
1359:
1356:
1354:
1351:
1345:
1342:
1340:
1337:
1333:
1330:
1328:
1325:
1320:
1317:
1315:
1312:
1308:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1296:
1293:
1289:
1284:
1281:
1279:
1276:
1270:
1267:
1265:
1262:
1258:
1255:
1253:
1250:
1244:
1241:
1239:
1236:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1214:
1211:
1207:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1196:
1192:
1189:
1187:
1184:
1180:
1177:
1175:
1172:
1168:
1165:
1163:
1160:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1141:
1135:
1131:
1126:
1123:
1121:
1118:
1114:
1111:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1087:
1085:
1082:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1053:
1052:Goodnightmush
1049:
1046:
1044:
1041:
1035:
1032:
1030:
1026:
1021:
1018:
1016:
1013:
1011:
1002:
999:
997:
992:
987:
983:
981:
977:
973:
969:
966:
964:
961:
960:
953:
950:
948:
945:
943:
937:
934:
932:
929:
924:
919:
913:
910:
908:
905:
901:
898:
896:
893:
889:
886:
884:
880:
876:
872:
869:
867:
863:
859:
855:
852:
850:
846:
842:
841:Mailer Diablo
838:
836:
833:
829:
826:
824:
820:
816:
813:
810:
806:
803:
799:
797:
793:
792:
791:
788:
784:
781:
779:
776:
772:
769:
767:
764:
760:
757:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
736:
734:
731:
727:
724:
722:
719:
718:
713:
706:
703:
701:
696:
693:
691:
686:
684:
677:
674:
672:
669:
664:
658:
655:
653:
648:
643:
642:
634:
631:
629:
626:
623:
621:
618:
617:
611:
604:
601:
599:
596:
595:
584:
571:
568:
566:
563:
557:
554:
552:
549:
545:
542:
540:
537:
532:
529:
527:
524:
520:
517:
515:
512:
511:
506:
503:
501:
497:
493:
489:
486:
485:
484:
483:
477:
476:
475:
474:
470:
469:
462:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
440:
436:
432:
428:
427:
423:
422:
417:
414:
409:
408:
407:
406:
399:
395:
394:
393:
392:
385:
382:
381:
380:
377:
375:
366:
362:
359:
358:
357:
356:
348:
345:
344:Pascal.Tesson
341:
337:
333:
330:
328:
325:
321:
318:
317:
316:
313:
311:
305:
302:
299:
298:
291:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
265:
261:
258:
254:
250:
246:
243:
242:
240:
237:
236:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:Jar Jar Binks
210:
205:
202:
201:Werner Herzog
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
176:
175:
173:
170:
169:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
139:
138:
136:
133:
132:
131:
125:
124:
123:
117:
114:
113:
112:
111:
107:
103:
95:
87:
84:
80:
76:
73:
70:
66:
62:
61:
58:
57:
50:
43:
40:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1458:
1455:
1437:Kelly Martin
1409:Kelly Martin
1404:
1392:
1380:
1374:
1373:
1357:
1343:
1331:
1318:
1306:
1300:
1299:
1282:
1268:
1261:Black Falcon
1256:
1242:
1228:
1220:Tony Sidaway
1202:
1190:
1178:
1166:
1154:
1144:
1139:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1112:
1100:
1088:
1059:
1047:
1033:
1019:
1000:
967:
955:
951:
941:
935:
911:
904:Kevinwong913
899:
887:
870:
853:
844:
827:
815:RyanGerbil10
811:
795:
794:
787:Mus Musculus
782:
770:
758:
737:
725:
708:
704:
689:
682:
675:
656:
638:
632:
609:
607:
602:
573:
569:
555:
543:
530:
518:
508:
504:
487:
481:
480:
472:
471:
467:
466:
397:
383:
373:
360:
354:
353:
331:
319:
309:
303:
244:
238:
177:
171:
140:
134:
129:
120:
115:
88:
71:
63:
59:
54:
53:
48:
38:
30:
28:
1332:Weak oppose
1307:Weak Oppose
1025:Cometstyles
249:Talk:Almaty
94:PUIdisputed
986:dario vet
775:Neutrality
763:Homestarmy
640:κaτaʟaveno
523:YechielMan
492:PS2pcGAMER
473:Discussion
450:WP:CANVASS
102:PS2pcGAMER
31:successful
1385:Sandstein
1274:Wizardman
1159:Acalamari
439:talk page
342:itself...
310:Cyde Weys
1476:Category
1423:WP:POINT
1381:Neutral.
1324:NeoFreak
1232:Garion96
1183:Jreferee
1117:Edivorce
1105:Philippe
1039:James086
912:HELL YES
812:Support.
750:contribs
510:cohesion
458:Staecker
431:Staecker
413:Staecker
387:revised.
324:Staecker
152:per day.
100:edits.
75:contribs
65:Staecker
49:Staecker
1405:Neutral
1375:Neutral
1283:Support
1269:Support
1257:Support
1243:Support
1229:Support
1210:Terence
1204:Terence
1191:Support
1179:Support
1171:Dweller
1167:Support
1155:Support
1125:Support
1113:Support
1101:Support
1089:Support
1060:Support
1048:Support
1034:Support
1020:Support
1001:Support
968:Support
952:Support
936:Support
900:Support
888:Support
875:Amarkov
871:Support
854:Support
845:approve
828:Support
796:Support
783:Support
771:Support
759:Support
742:KNcyu38
738:Support
726:Support
705:Support
676:Support
662:Captain
657:Support
633:Support
625:Terence
603:Support
570:Support
556:Support
544:Support
531:Support
519:Support
505:Support
488:Support
482:Support
374:kantari
332:Comment
209:50 Cent
203:lately.
187:, some
143:My bot
1358:Oppose
1344:Oppose
1319:Oppose
1301:Oppose
1248:Alison
1235:(talk)
958:LeCour
922:master
892:Osidge
858:danntm
843:and I
548:Addhoc
398:should
365:WP:IAR
340:pointy
278:that).
217:Kazakh
1336:Wooyi
1311:Xoloz
1140:Eagle
1136:. ——
1130:trust
954:. --
917:Grand
802:Wooyi
667:panda
370:Nacon
225:Borat
79:C:CSD
56:Final
16:<
1441:talk
1413:talk
1364:InBC
1195:AKAF
1009:URGH
991:talk
976:talk
879:moo!
839:I'm
746:talk
496:talk
454:here
429:See
268:here
266:and
264:here
229:Liar
219:and
106:talk
69:talk
1292:Joe
1290:.
1145:101
942:Eva
730:Doc
716:fon
711:Gan
690:ton
683:Wal
590:ddi
164:it.
83:bot
1478::
1443:)
1415:)
1349:VS
984:--
978:)
927:ka
773:.
752:)
748:•
615:as
593:ct
579:ll
576:Te
498:)
384:A:
361:5.
320:A:
304:4.
245:A:
239:3.
178:A:
172:2.
141:A:
135:1.
108:)
97:}}
91:{{
36:.
1439:(
1411:(
1080:l
1077:e
1074:h
1071:c
1068:s
1065:M
1006:M
993:)
989:(
974:(
862:C
744:(
740:—
647:C
612:n
610:A
587:a
582:y
494:(
441:.
104:(
72:·
67:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.